smozoma

True, the question could be restated as 1 minute 2 minutes more than 2 minutes then vote again on 3 minutes vs 4 minutes, if the 'more than' option wins. same kind of thing for the draft format -- '100% snaking' vs 'not 100% snaking (could be 100% non-snaking, or a hybrid)'

seconded!

"headbutt"!

Might want to put the deadline in the title of the thread. I very nearly skipped this thread because it didn't seem to actually be about anything in particular.

Haha, I like it, "injuring." Boarding didn't make much sense, since it's almost always an open-ice hit.

3 never struck me as a bad number. 8 seems like a lot, but screwing someone out of some points/stats sucks.. tough call. You could just make it something like "x draft positions per game missed where you didn't make an effort" If the draft is snaking, I guess putting them at the bottom is fine. Why give Roenick to a new guy, when a guy who was terrorized by him the last season could get him? If the draft is part non-snaking, then the issue is more complicated... the skill of the player is important to factor in.

I went 'no'.. If I got yake, I would treasure him for his individuality

I had to vote no... We just have to stop somewhere, and i think 24 is a good number. Two 16-team leagues would be good, too. I wouldn't want too few teams in a league, though, as the teams are just too fast and powerful (as was the case in the short-lived nhl94.net league).

I've been thinking of making a multi-tiered league. Three (or more) 10-team divisions/leagues. A, B, C,.. levels. drafted teams. line changes on, since the teams would be deep. maybe C league has no line changes. top 8 make the playoffs. regular season champ and playoff champ both promoted to next league. if it's the same guy, then the other cup finalist also promoted. the 2 teams that miss the playoffs are relegated down. seasons are 36 games (4 vs each team). season and playoffs should take just 2 months, so the league 'evolves' quickly. smaller league size reduces the need for non-snaking draft, but it could be introduced if things get too predictable. but, not enough free time these days to try to make it happen...

A thought.. In the NHL, the division/conference system is largely about travel issues. Online, travel is not an issue. What if we ignore the division level when making the schedule -- teams in the same conference could all play each other the same number of times. If you play each team in your conference 3 times and each team in the other conf twice, that's a 57-game schedule. This would make division placement less of an issue. Thought #2: If we do a hybrid draft, the division balancing issue mostly goes away because there won't be such a large disparity between the good players and the bad players.

I'm not sure why i get so rant-y on some topics I can see why some people want a completely even draft, since we're competing (though I like to think of it as friendly competition where you want both guys to at least be competitive against each other..) Also, the top 10 or so players (roenick, belfour, etc) are so much better than the rest that there is certainly a bit of an advantage to picking in the top 10. It's like a bell curve, where the later players are more clumped together, so 1st and 48th picks are probably a bit better than 24th and 25th. I still prefer a hybrid, though! You could also factor in the fact that the weaker coaches typically don't draft players as well as the better coaches. Lemieux as the first pick? Yzerman lasting to around 10th pick? And heck, I picked Ranford in the second round. First 2 rounds non-snaked is good; 3 was a bit much. Or, snake the first 2, then non-snake the next 3 or 4 rounds.

I am pretty sure the non-snaking of the first three rounds will get shot down here. People want a couple franchise guys... Full non-snaking will never happen. What about an option for mid-draft non-snaking rounds? 1: #1 to #24 2: #24 to #1 3: #1 to #24 4: #1 to #24 5: #1 to #24 6: #24 to #1 7: #1 to #24 8: #24 to #1 9-12: keep snaking 1: #1 to #24 2: #24 to #1 3: #1 to #24 4: #24 to #1 5: #1 to #24 6: #1 to #24 7: #1 to #24 8: #24 to #1 9: #1 to #24 10-12: keep snaking I think this is a good compromise. There are piles of guys in those middle rounds who aren't going to be anyone's go-to guy, but will still help 'shift' things overall to make a more balanced league, especially the goalies and checking defensemen. Do people just not care about equalizing things a bit? I'm a .500 guy as it is (in the draft league, anyway), so it won't make much difference to my record, but if I were a better or worse player, I know I'd rather win some and lose some than win 80% or lose 80%. I'd rather see closer games and tighter races throughout the league.

May I propose.. the mid-draft non-snake for-the-purpose-of-better-parity,-excitement,-and-coach-retention-while-still-getting-two-respectable-players 1: 24->1 2: 1>24 3: 24->1 4: 24->1 5: 1>24 6: 24->1 7: 1>24 8: 24->1 9: 1>24 .. (by 24, i mean the 24th ranked team, ie weakest coach) Any number of rounds could be non-snaked, 2 like above, 3..

I think 30 is too many, primarily because of the goalies. I'd rather not see any goalies rated below 60, they're just toooo bad. As it is, I think all the goalies below 70 are pretty darn brutal...

You probably just misread dadonch, but the idea is that the weaker guys get a few rounds of better picks, but not for the whole draft. For those who aren't converts, I will evangelize it again! It'll make the league closer while not making much of a relative difference for players who are already around the same skill level (ie if you're about as good as playerX, you'll both still have similar records, since you'll have drafted around the same spot.. he may have gotten a round or two extra where he got to pick before you, though, but only by a couple spots). I think the best reason for it is to reduce the dropout rate for new guys. A second benefit is that things won't be as predictable, since the weaker guys will be more competitive and the good guys will be just heads above the mere mortals, instead of head AND shoulders . 3 rounds right off could possibly be too much, but we can always just see how the season pans out, and change it next season. Or just do the first two rounds (WW-BWBWBW..), or a hybrid-hybrid (WW-B-WW-BWB..) -- currently proposed is (WWW-BWBWB..). In all 3 of those formats, the W(eaker) coaches get 4 of the first 6 rounds with early picks, but the position of the rounds where the B(etter) coaches get top picks changes. We could even put the non-snaking rounds later on (WB-WWW-BWB..) so everyone can get a 'dynamic duo' in the first two rounds, while the weaker players can draft a good supporting cast in the middle rounds (goalies will probably be the big equalizers). I would consider giving new guys better draft positions. They're the guys most likely to drop out, because they typically aren't very good their first season. We could end up in a situation where they get shelled by everyone because the weaker coaches got to draft better players, and the better coaches are, well, better. Maybe just put them right after the guys who missed the playoffs. I missed the playoffs by I think 1 point, so I don't really feel I need to draft better than new, inexperienced guys. So, maybe put them after the guys who missed the playoffs, but let each playoff misser choose to draft after the new guys if they want to.

I think 2 minutes is fine. 4 might have been ok with 7 minute periods, but it's waaayy too much with 5 minute periods. http://65.36.133.56/nhl94_draft/teamstats.asp One thing I noticed is that even the guys with 2-3 goals per game last year had PP% in the 30s. Tampa Bay scored 19% of their goals on the PP. So, if you double the penalty time to 4 minutes, you're giving about a 60% chance for a goal even for the guys like me who can't score. That's pretty annoying when you take out, say, Brian Bellows for the last 23 seconds of the 2nd period. Overall, people scored 13.1% of their goals on the powerplay. If they took an average of the whole 2 minutes for each powerplay, they would have played 16.8% of their games shorthanded. I think a better estimate is about 1:20 per powerplay (probably still generous) which makes that percentage 11.2%. 13.1% of goals in 11.2% of the time, just a 17% boost, say 20%. A powerplay doesn't seem to do a whole lot to help a teams scoring. However, what it does do, is greatly hinder the shorthanded team's ability to score! Though many people feel that they score a lot shorthanded, it's not nearly their usual rate: in an offline stats league i run, the PP% is 35.8% and the SHG% is 23.3%, and you can potentially score multiple shorthanded goals on one penalty.

=returning

Dallas, please!

-server-based play -direct connection (p2p) play -game recording Sounds amazing! How does the movie recording work? Does it go straight to AVI, or does it record the button presses to a file, then lets you record to AVI from that file?

I'm not worried about myself here -- I tend to believe I have a chance to win any single game I'm in (even though, considering my record, I really don't, and I've lost some games by 9+ goals in the past). But I see people handing out 20-0 whoopings once in a while where the other guy gets 3 shots, and I think it's unnecessary. At the very least, it just makes the game drag on (everyone hates it when the other guy stops the play with the goalie after every shot, right?). The first time I played Habs, he had me down 6-0 eleven seconds in the 2nd period ( http://65.36.133.56/nhl94/recap.aspx?gameid=429 ). I was clearly outclassed the moment we stepped on the 8bit ice and could do nothing to stop him. He probably could have made it close to 15-0, but he didn't, and I definitely enjoyed the game more because of it. As for pro leagues, they actually do try to keep things level, through the draft (and salary caps, to some extent..)

Anyway.. to sum up what I've been trying to get across.. What really bugged me here is that there are people who think there is absolutely nothing wrong with demolishing weaker players, and then they practically even blame the other guy for not being good enough or 'committed' enough when the whoop-ee complains that perhaps the guy should have been happy with winning by 10 goals, instead of going for 15. Have a bit of empathy for the guy sitting on the other end of that 'net connection. The "golden rule" is incomplete. It shouldn't be"treat others as you want to be treated;" it should be "treat others as you would want to be treated if your positions were reversed." Just because you want to do some.. interesting.. things with Angelina Jolie, doesn't mean that she wants you to jump her if you ever get within 10 feet of her.

I meant if you're already a player who could win most games even with a middling team like Edmonton, then picking Chicago is pretty lame, because the season would be a complete cakewalk.

I stumbled across a file containing my team picks for this season of the Classic league: I did indeed pick Dallas with my first pick! Sorry for doubting you!

Why not? In a league with unequal teams, what is wrong with the weaker players getting first shot at the stronger teams? The competition would be so much better. What point is there in having a good player use a good team to beat a bad player with a mediocre team? I'm also in favour of giving weaker players improved draft positions in draft leagues. A league where every game is potentially up for grabs would be great. I'm a .500 player as it is (draft league, anyway Classic league isn't going so well so far!). I just don't see what's so wrong with giving bad players good teams and good players bad teams. As long as your team is about equal with the teams of the other players who are about your equal, then what's the big problem? It won't make a difference in your games vs the guys who are just as good as you; and you're still usually going to beat the bad players, but at least the games will be competitive. Coo' Ehh.. debatable.. If the draft gives weaker players better teams, then sure. If teams are about equal, then the ability to beat a guy 22-0 and get 15 pts with one player just doesn't seem that meaningful. There's no money at the end for the guy with the most goals... at the end of the day, it's just a game, and making 15 minutes of some guys day suck just doesn't seem worth it to me.

Have some empathy for the other guy Playing at 75% effort is 0% fun? Playing at 100% effort and giving the other guy 0% fun, well, that takes some of the fun out of it for me. Maybe I'm just soft that way. On the other hand, I guess playing guys way below one's level isn't as fun as playing guys at the same level, so better to whoop 'em -- if they can't take it, they won't ask to play again. Maximal fun through discouraging playing each other / encouraging playing other people. And it's hard to know how the other guy is going to handle it. Yeah, as long as the league is set up so it's random, people should be able to pick who they want.. (picking chicago, though, is of course the height of lameness.. "yay i won the league with the most dominant team in the game i'm awesome"). I'd like to see the leagues draft in reverse order, though, to give weaker players better teams. It's a bit harder to feel bad about crushing CHI with SJ. The thing is, you say that because you know that the next game you have a chance to beat him or at least have a close game. I'm sure if you stepped on the ice with Chris Pronger, you'd be pissed at him for not putting your head through the glass... right...